sophoristically speaking

redirect yourself

2003-07-25T18:13:00.000-07:00

Sophoristically Speaking has moved to a new location: sophoristically speaking. It even received a much needed facelift!

sophoristically speaking is moving

2003-07-25T09:16:00.000-07:00

sophoristically speaking is moving to a new home and will be using new blogware. Right now, I haven't had any time to customize or get familiar with the new blogware, Movable Type, yet, but the site is up and should have the archives intact. If you have been kind enough to link to sophoristically speaking at this location, I will try to let you know about the new address, http://www.sophorist.com/ . Or click here.

dnc not allowed to lie

2003-07-23T22:15:00.000-07:00

The Democratic National Committee is upset that a local television station in Wisconsin is refusing to run an ad accusing President Bush of lying in the State of the Union address.

WMSN, a Fox affiliate, issued a statement saying the ad was misleading because it omitted the phrase, "The British government has learned" about Iraq's efforts to buy uranium in Africa. "WMSN gave the DNC the opportunity to edit the ad and include the British government's involvement, but that request was denied," the statement said.

Question: Why is the DNC running ads attacking Bush right now?

The truth is out there, but don't look for Terry McAuliffe to show you where it is.

Kudos to WMSN in Madison, Wisconsin, for not selling out.

some details on the deaths of mini-husseins

2003-07-23T22:05:00.000-07:00

This article from the Palm Beach Post provides some interesting details on the deaths of Uday and Qusay. Apparently, three or four American servicemen were injured in the assault on the villa. An excerpt:

"I would never consider this a failure," [Lt. Gen. Ricardo] Sanchez said in response to a question about whether U.S. forces would have been better off capturing the men and interrogating them for valuable information.

"Our mission is to find, kill or capture. In this case, we had an enemy that was defending, it was barricaded, and we had to take the measures that were necessary in order to neutralize the target," he said.

No matter what rhetoric is spewed forth from a certain unnamed politician (whose name rhymes with "tangle") rooting against America, it would not have been worth the life of a single American soldier to capture the evil spawn of Saddam alive. Good job, 101st. Airborne!

missouri concealed carry - rep. vicky riback wilson

2003-07-23T21:43:00.000-07:00

A while back, I posted about a statement made by Representative Vicky Riback Wilson, D-Columbia, stating her reasons for opposing concealed carry in Missouri. I also posted an email I sent requesting what information she used to support her statement.

To my surprise I received a response from her office with some information. Unfortunately, the information she provided had little to deal with opposition to concealed carry laws. Her response demostrated her position is based on the fact that she is anti-gun, not merely anti-concealed carry.

One example she cited:

A study published by public health professionals have repeatedly found that having a gun around for any reason increases the likelihood that a family member -- as opposed to a criminal -- will be injured or killed with a gun.

I hope taxpayer money didn't pay for that survey.

A study published here first, just now, conducted by me, found that having a car around for any reason increases the likelihood that a family member -- as opposed to a criminal -- will be injured or killed with a car. Yes, I am anti-car-ry.

If you are interested in Missouri's concealed carry debate, email me and I will forward a copy of her response.

john kerry calls for strong military attack on iraq

2003-07-23T20:12:00.000-07:00

The SmarterCop links to an interesting story wherein it was reported that:

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts is calling for a 'strong' military attack in response to the Iraqi leader's 'horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.' "

That was reported in Inside the Beltway on November 17, 1997. Who is to blame for the faulty intelligence that mislead him into making those statements?

trials

2003-07-23T20:02:00.000-07:00

No updates lately as I am in the middle of a document-intensive trial and I've had no free time whatsoever. Emails, voicemails, snail mails, and everything else is bearing down on me. I hope to get uncovered by this weekend.

davis loses stalling tactic

2003-07-20T15:36:00.000-07:00

In an effort to stall the ongoing recall effort in California, Governor Gray Davis' ally, Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, instructed county election officials that they could take an extra thirty days to verify signatures on recall petitions, rather than the proper procedure of verifying signatures as they are counted.

A California appellate court disagreed and ordered the Secretary of State to instruct counties to verify the signatures as they are counted.

"It's a complete and total victory," said James F. Sweeney, attorney for the Recall Gray Davis Committee. He added that it would be "highly probable" that a recall election will be certified next week.

Predictably, the media has not been savaging the California Secretary of State (Democrat) like they did the Florida Secretary of State (Republican) in the last presidential election.

Read the AP story here.

the truth laid bear

2003-07-20T14:21:00.000-07:00

The Truth Laid Bear is a nifty site showing traffic rankings on a whole bunch of blogs. Pretty cool tool. You can peruse the list to find out what popular blogs everyone but you is reading.

i fart in your general direction!

2003-07-19T13:05:00.000-07:00

Merde in France is now openly violating French law. This post explains why.

Jason from The Radio Conspiracy wonders if this is the best the French can do to get back at the U.S.

a new david to microsoft's goliath

2003-07-19T12:18:00.000-07:00

From the pages of Popular Science, read about X-Plane, a home built flight simulator that many professionals say is more technically accurate than Microsoft's best-selling Flight Simulator. An excerpt:

But there are disadvantages to being a one-man show. It's hard to imagine Microsoft coming home drunk one night from a party and accidentally uploading its entire source code, as Meyer did a few years back. "I woke up the next morning and found an e-mail from a friend alerting me to what I'd done. My heart stopped. I had basically given away 12 years of work. I thought my life was over." He was able to remove the files before anyone could spread them around, but to this day he feels like he dodged a bullet. "I don't drink anymore," he says.

Popular Science also has this article testing both programs on a flight through the Rockies.

X-Plane's site is here.

we can't keep holden on

2003-07-19T12:10:00.000-07:00

Courtesy of bigredgiant, you can listen to an amusing song entitled We Can't Keep Holden On. Bob Holden is the wildly unpopular governor of Missouri. Check it out.

advice to bush

2003-07-17T17:51:00.000-07:00

Buckley has some advice to Bush, here, regarding his move from compassionate conservatism to questionable conservatism. He also discusses the prescription drug bill.

We hear the grand figure that under the Senate bill, we would undertake a trillion-dollar entitlement over 10 years. That translates to: taking a trillion dollars from some people and giving it -- not exactly to a different set of people, but to people identified by different means.

The emphasis is of course on help to older people, the principal beneficiaries of whatever the reduced cost would be in buying drugs. Older people have more to worry about in looking after their health, but less in looking after school bills and mortgage payments. It would be very difficult to prove, over the long run, that older people will, as a class, benefit from the pending bills. There is no tax bill on the table that exempts older people from taxation, and it is probable that they will devote the same percentage of their income as before to medical expenses.

Who doesn't believe pharmaceutical companies will raise prices once legislation like this takes effect? I still have questions about that particular piece of legislation. We, the people, don't need that program and it is a blatant attempt to pander to the senior citizen vote.

Will a real conservative please stand up and put his or her finger in the deficit dyke? Quit mortgaging our financial futures for present political advantage.

boortz calls for levin to investigate himself

2003-07-17T17:32:00.000-07:00

Neal Boortz, host of America's Rude Awakening, and a generally pretty entertaining guy to listen to, has the following to say regarding Senator Carl Levin's call for an investigation into those famous 16 words:

Democratic Senator Carl Levin is having a grand old time slamming the Bush Administration over the magic 16 words in the State of the Union speech. Levin is calling for an investigation of Bush’s claim that “The British government has learned that Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

So, Levin wants an investigation, does he?

On October 9, 1998 (when there was a Democrat in office) Carl Levin made a speech on the floor of the Senate in which he stated that there are reports that “Iraq (has) attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear program contrary to its treaty obligations.”

We are now waiting for Carl Levin to call for an investigation into his own remarks.

Today only, the link to the story is here. Then it will move to here. Note to Neal, get some blogware so readers can link to individual items in your Nuze and can refer to a permalink.

blair

2003-07-17T17:14:00.000-07:00

Tony Blair gave Congress a lesson in the American way of life today--a lesson that sadly need to be taught given the political rancor in Washington and the media.

"There has never been a time when the power of America was so necessary, or so misunderstood," he said.

Like Winston Churchill, who came before Congress the month the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor and plunged into world war, he quoted Abraham Lincoln, although for a different purpose. "Those that deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves," Blair quoted.

"Why America?" he asked rhetorically, meaning why must America lead. "And the only answer is: because destiny put you in this place in history, in this moment in time and the task is yours to do."

He went on: "You are not going to be alone. We will be with you in this fight for liberty."

Hopefully both Democrats and Republicans will heed his words, chill on the political infighting, and get to work to keep our nation great.

Read about it in the Kansas City Star.

the passion

2003-07-16T23:30:00.000-07:00

Mel Gibson's new movie, The Passion, will be big, despite the fact that many are trying to malign and denounce the film before it is even released. For instance:

The director of interfaith affairs at the Anti-Defamation League in New York, Rabbi Eugene Korn, says: "Historically, 'passion' plays have been very dangerous productions in terms of Christian attitudes toward Jews. Many dramatic presentations of the passion contained anti-Semitic elements ... that led to the charge of deicide (killing of a god) and responsibility of Jews for the Crucifixion. Not only Jews who lived then, but Jews for all time."

***

Korn says he will wait "a suitable amount of time" for Gibson to respond to the request for a panel to read the script. "If he doesn't respond, the controversy will certainly heat up. We are all very vigilant about things like this."

The letter to Gibson from the ADL is here. The ADL informs Gibson that he has "a great responsibility in the message ultimately promoted by the film, one we hope that is positive."

The positive message part will be difficult, given the fact that the whole purpose of the film is to graphically show the suffering Jesus Christ endured in the last twelve hours of his life. It was brutal and bloody and, from viewing the trailer, it looks like the film will capture that fact.

Christians believe the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, more specifically his resurrection three days later, is the greatest positive event in human history. I don't think the ADL would agree, but this isn't a movie about what the Jews think about Jesus.

The Anti-Defamation League also issued this press release. Based upon their scholars' review of an early version of the screen play, the ADL stated:

The committee unanimously agreed that the screenplay reviewed was replete with objectionable elements that would promote anti-Semitism.

Based upon the scholars' analysis of the screenplay, ADL has serious concerns regarding the Mr. Gibson's "The Passion" and asks:

Will the final version of The Passion continue to portray Jews as blood-thirsty, sadistic and money-hungry enemies of Jesus?

Will it correct the unambiguous depiction of Jews as the ones responsible for the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus? Will it show the power of the rule of imperial Rome-including its frequent use of crucifixion-in first-century Palestine?

Will the film reject exploiting New Testament passages selectively to weave a narrative that does injustice to the gospels, that oversimplifies history, and that is hostile to Jews and Judaism?

Will it live up to its promise "to tell the truth?" To do so, the final product must rid itself of fictitious non-scriptural elements (e.g. the high priest's control of Pontius Pilate, the cross built in the Temple at the direction of Jewish religious officials, excessive violence, Jews physically abusing Jesus before the crucifixion, Jews paying "blood money" for the crucifixion), all of which form an inescapably negative picture of Jewish society and leadership.

Will it portray Jews and the Temple as the locus of evil?

Reading the press release makes me wonder whether these folks from the ADL have read the New Testament. The situation was certainly complex.

Some Jews loved and supported Jesus Christ. After all, Jesus Christ was a Jew. The disciples were Jews. Most of Jesus Christ' followers were Jews.

Many others hated Jesus Christ. The Pharisees and some other powerful religious and political Jews wanted Him dead, paid one of His disciples to betray Him, and delivered Him to the Romans. The Jews (not all Jews, of course) chose to have a criminal, Barabbas, go free instead of Jesus Christ, leaving Him to be crucified by the Romans.

Some Jews made Him their enemy, some did not.

I find it hard to believe the ADL is concerned about a narrative that "does injustice to the gospels." Does the ADL believe the gospels are true in the first place?

"Will it live up to its promise to tell the truth?" Well, that's a tough billing for any movie or any person for that matter. It certainly won't tell the truth as the ADL believes the truth to be. It may or may not resemble the "truth" as Christians believe. We'll have to see. Individuals are free to reject the movie as false, just as they are free to reject the gospels as false.

As far as the Temple being the locus of evil, did not Jesus Christ frequently teach in the Temple, was He not frequently challenged by Jewish leaders in the Temple, and did He not overturn the tables of the money-changers in the Temple? I don't know if those events are what the ADL is referring to in the movie as I haven't seen it. If those are the scenes the ADL doesn't like, those scenes are certainly in the gospels.

Another article states:

“Viewers without extensive knowledge of Catholic teaching about interpreting the New Testament will surely leave the theatre with the overriding impression that the bloodthirsty, vengeful and money-hungry Jews simply had an implacable hatred of Jesus,” said the confidential report, which has not been released publicly.

The bloodthirsty, vengeful, and hate-filled traits were certainly characteristic of those who wanted Jesus Christ dead. I'm not sure it had anything to do with money at root, but money changed hands. If these critics are saying all Jews weren't like those that wanted Christ dead, I whole-heartedly agree. If the critics are saying no Jews were like that, they are wrong.

This article also discusses the Roman Catholic church's repudiation of the doctrine that Jews are collectively to blame for the death of Jesus Christ. Rightly so. All people are collectively and individually to blame for the death of Jesus Christ. All Protestant Christians, to my knowledge (not sure about Roman Catholics), believe that Christ died for the sin of each and all.

In an article by David Limbaugh:

To further ensure the accuracy of the work, Gibson has enlisted the counsel of pastors and theologians, and has received rave reviews. Don Hodel, president of Focus on the Family, said, "I was very impressed. The movie is historically and theologically accurate." Ted Haggard, pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo., and president of the National Evangelical Association glowed, "It conveys, more accurately than any other film, who Jesus was."

From the same article:

Gibson is beginning to experience first hand just how controversial Christ is. Critics have not only speciously challenged the movie's authenticity, but have charged that it is disparaging to Jews, which Gibson vehemently denies. "This is not a Christian versus Jewish thing. '(Jesus) came into the world, and it knew him not.' Looking at Christ's crucifixion, I look first at my own culpability in that."

Jesuit Father William J. Fulco, who translated the script into Aramaic and Latin, said he saw no hint of anti-Semitism in the movie. Fulco added, "I would be aghast at any suggestion that Mel is anti-Semitic."

Also:

A group of Jewish and Christian academics has issued an 18-page report slamming all aspects of the film, including its undue emphasis on Christ’s passion rather than "a broader vision."

The movie is about Christ's passion. If they want a movie with "a broader vision," they are free to make one.

More here from Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and Harold Brackman, a historian and consultant to the Wiesenthal Center:

It shouldn't need saying, but apparently it does. The Romans were in control of Jerusalem at the time of Christ's execution -- not the Jews. Crucifixion was the preferred Roman method of punishment, not one sanctioned by Jewish law. Jesus and his followers were Jews. Could Jewish authorities have played a role in turning Jesus over to the Romans? Possibly.

Hier and Brackman's first point is correct and everbody I know is aware of that fact. It's made abundantly clear in the gospels. But it is more than just possible that Jewish authorities played a role in turning Jesus Christ over to the Romans. Read Matthew 26:47-27:44, Mark 14:43-15:32, Luke 22:47-23:43, and John 18-19:22. The gospels say that (in rough terms) the Jewish authorities arrested Jesus Christ and turned Him over to the Romans to be crucified. It shouldn't need saying, but apparently it does. If you don't believe the gospels are true, you won't believe the portrayal of a portion of the gospels in this film is true. Why should a movie, made from a Christian viewpoint, about Jesus Christ be modified to please those who do not believe in Him?

Those trying to present a Christian viewpoint to today's world will always be challenged. I would prefer to see the movie uncensored by the ADL, other non-Christians and anti-Christians, and those who prefer "modern Christian biblical scholarship, which puts the four differing Gospel stories into historical context" (a fancy way of saying they have revised the gospels to suit their own beliefs, instead of vice versa). I can make up my own mind as to what it true and what is Hollywood.

Chuck Colson discusses the double standard applied to movies about Jesus Christ here.

View the trailer for The Passion here.

rhetoric channel / reality channel

2003-07-16T21:21:00.000-07:00

G. In Baghdad is also an Iraqi blogger. He hasn't updated lately, but one of his posts is quite insightful and should be required reading for all foreign journalists in Iraq. G. writes about how Iraqis have two channels or ways of perceiving the world, a rhetoric channel and a reality channel. Which one an observer gets out of the Iraqi depends on several factors. An excerpt:

Here in Iraq every citizen was provided -since the early days of the regime- with a whole set of lies that gradually became the foundation on which you would build your perceptions of the world outside. Consequently you end up with two channels, a “channel reality” that is off the air most of the times and “channel rhetoric” a mixture of self-denial, conspiracy theory [apologia] and propaganda. Of course we shouldn’t blame Saddam and his lies based tyrannical regime only, this phenomenon has its roots deep in our cultural/religious history.

G. also provides examples of what he means. For instance:

every one of us here in Iraq has this small plug in police officer back in his mined which will monitor all our movements and talking even now almost 3 month after the American tanks roared into Baghdad.

Asking a man standing under the sun in the middle of the street what do you think of the Americans? He will answer with a combination of the following:

“They are invaders, they have this big pipe pumping our oil directly to the white house, they haven’t fixed our electricity yet, they are not paying our salaries, they haven’t done anything for us apart from promises, where is the freedom they spoke about? We haven’t seen any yet” not mentioning the real conspiracy theory stuff, like the Americans are steeling money when they search cars at check points or they are using there apache gunships to watch our ladies when they sleep on the roof tops."

Lets cut these things and ask the guy, but they have toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein, you don’t have to be terrified of his security apparatus any more, your son wont spend all his days trying to avoid the party members or bribe the army officers to spare him the torture of conscript army service, Saddam and his grandchildren would have stayed here for ever if it wasn’t the Americans.

He will answer yes I now but u know…..

I think one of the main issues we have to face, is how to stop using the rhetoric channel, how could we stop this cog mire of stupid conspiracy theories going on and on and on how to liberate our selves from the secret police mechanisms nesting in our brains, this liberation will not be achieved by American tanks, nor by a self-denial flagellation process.

G.'s posts are insightful. Hopefully, he will continue to post.

iraqi blog

2003-07-16T20:55:00.000-07:00

From a blog written by an Iraqi,Where is Raed ?

The best job for anyone now is selling cold Pepsi on the road. The customers are often US soldiers trying to survive the heat. The amount of Pepsi trucks you see being unloaded everyday is incredible.

Note to Democrats: Time to begin calling for congressional hearings to determine whether Dick Cheney drinks Pepsi.

On a more serious note, check out the Salam Pax's blog.

blogs from iraq

2003-07-16T20:32:00.000-07:00

L.T. Smash has a list of blogs maintained by members of the U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq and by Iraqi citizens here.

regime change

2003-07-16T17:08:00.000-07:00

Raines is gone, but there has not been regime change at the New York Times, according to the Media Research Center. Read about it here. Samples of the past writings of new executive editor, Bill Keller, are collected in the MRC's story. An excerpt:

“We’ve got a [Bush] administration characterized by blind faith in crony capitalism, a drunken spendthrift’s version of supply-side economics, and a secretive, country-club executive style. The people-versus-the-powerful sloganeering was grating, but on the merits wasn’t Mr. Gore right?”

Raines, Keller, and then there's that little known third category...

memo to sharon davis

2003-07-16T16:42:00.000-07:00

Dear Mrs. Gray Davis:

This is a hostile takeover.

This is not a hostile takeover.

This is a hostile takeover.

This is still not a hostile takeover.

Any questions?

bob graham's world

2003-07-15T21:21:00.000-07:00

I'm really not picking on Senator Bob Graham. I've just stumbled across some things he's said lately on the election trail. Read the part of this transcript in which he is being interviewed by CNN on July 10th. Excerpts:

CROWLEY: Did the president lie knowingly to the American people?

GRAHAM: There has been a pattern of deception throughout this administration, Candy. It's not just limited to Iraq or national security issue.

Ms. Crowley didn't reference the president by name when asking this question, nor did she provide any context as to which president she was referring. In fairness, I think Senator Graham thought the question referenced the Clinton administration, so we'll let that one pass.

CROWLEY: Well, Senator, as you know, the president scores fairly high among the public for being trustworthy and honest. This, obviously, is an attempt to say, Wait a second. But when you say misleading and his administration is misleading, aren't we talking about the president? And is this an actual accusation from Democrats, yourself included, that the president deliberately lied? I mean, isn't that what everybody is sort of dancing around?

GRAHAM: Well, I believe in the old admonition if you're the captain of the ship and the ship goes aground, you're responsible. The administration, President Bush appointed all of the key people who are running our intelligence agencies. He appointed the people in the Department of Defense and the Department of State which reviewed the information. And in spite of all that, in his State of the State Union -- message, he had a statement that was clearly untrue. And that is that Niger had supplied nuclear materials to Iraq.

What? President Bush said in the SOTU address that "Niger had supplied nuclear materials to Iraq?" Graham just made a statement that was "clearly untrue." Bush said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Not even close, Bob.

Also, President Clinton appointed George Tenet director of the CIA, the intelligence agency responsible for the statement being criticized by Senator Graham. The word Tenet does have five letters, though.

CROWLEY: Here's what you said in December. "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons for mass destruction.

How does that square with saying, Look, you know, the president, you know, made this up?

GRAHAM: Well, that statement was based on the briefings that we had had just a few weeks earlier by the CIA and other intelligence agencies in which they made such a case.

Actually, Ms. Crowley, what Senator Graham is saying is that he did not lie when he relied on intelligence reports to make his statement, but President Bush did lie when he relied on intelligence reports in the SOTU address.

GRAHAM: Frankly, I hope, even at this late date, that we find those weapons because if we don't, the credibility of the United States around the world, the credibility of the United States government with the people of America, will be substantially eroded.

In my experience, the word frankly at the beginning of a sentence is an indication that what follows will usually be a lie. I think Rhett Butler really did care about Scarlett O'Hara (as proof, see the title to this article). Frankly, I'm not saying Senator Graham's statement that he hopes those weapons are found is a lie.

Frankly, I hope Senator Graham gets elected president.

deficits, debt ceilings, and GDP

2003-07-15T20:07:00.000-07:00

The federal budget deficit is growing again. With a war on and the new prescription drug welfare plan, there are no signs that this trend will be reversing soon. Check out this chart and analysis from The Digital Economist.

Not exactly what I expected from a Republican president and a Republican controlled Congress. While 9/11 and the War on Terror were, and are, expensive--and justifiable--we should pay for those things in a fiscally responsible manner by reallocating expenditures.

The Democrats have no room to point fingers. They support (or supported) the War on Terror and wanted an even larger prescription drug welfare plan. And don't believe the Democrats when they start talking about irresponsible spending and a "record" federal deficit. For one thing, the federal deficit as a percentage of our nation's Gross Domestic Product is still smaller than during the 1980's and early 1990's. For another, the only time Democrats criticize a spending program (unless it is for the military or intelligence programs, followed shortly thereafter by criticism about the work the military or intelligence agencies are doing) is when they believe we are not spending enough.

What we need is a shift in spending, rather than an increase in spending. As priorities change, spending should reflect those changes. A smaller federal government would help.

We should also take a look at the funds that go to the federal government, only to be given back to the states for state projects. Anytime we see a program like that, we should lower federal taxes, have a proportional increase in state taxes, and just give the money straight to the state. California shouldn't have a say as to how Missourians spend their tax money in Missouri.

Imagine all the money that would be freed up in the process by not having to be withheld, counted, processed, recounted, debated, allocated, squandered, recounted, channeled, overseen, distributed, and squandered.

d-e-c-e-i-t

2003-07-14T22:43:00.000-07:00

Democratic candidate for president, Senator Bob Graham, ran out of fingers when trying to count the number of letters in the word deceit while addressing the NAACP. He was asked whether President Bush lied about you know what. His response:

"I would not use the three-letter word," the Florida senator told reporters. "I would use the five-letter word: deceit."

It didn't take very long for astute reporters to figure out the math on this one. What's the big deal? Anyone can make this kind of mistake. It doesn't mean you're stupid--unless, of course, you are a Republican.

Read about it here.

al qaeda and the plaintiffs' bar?!?

2003-07-14T19:52:00.000-07:00

Trial lawyers pose a threat to homeland security.

What?

Read the article by Melanie Kirkpatrick of the Wall Street Journal here. The theory being espoused in this article is that medical professionals won't volunteer in the event of a terrorist attack because they are afraid of being sued by those "evil" trial lawyers (evil, that is, until someone you love gets run over by a semi or has the wrong leg amputated). More:

The problem here is recruitment. Many medical professionals have bitter personal experience with the tort system and are unwilling to volunteer unless they're protected from lawsuits.

That's right--I forgot all about the hundreds of lawsuits filed against doctors treating victims of the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

Liability reform is an essential part of homeland security. Without it, more Americans are likely to die in a large-scale terrorist attack.

That statement is so ridiculous, I'm not sure what to say. Maybe I should ask the straw man what he thinks.